|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 482 Records
-
2000 (12) TMI 931 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nded for a period of one month from today. If the contemnor would give an undertaking in this Court, in the form of an affidavit, to the effect that he would not commit or even attempt to commit any act of criminal contempt, then the sentence now imposed by us would remain suspended for a further period of five years. But if the contemnor commits any act of criminal contempt during the said period of five years, the suspension of the sentence will stand revoked and then he will have to undergo the sentence of imprisonment for six months. Otherwise the question of revival of the sentence would depend upon the order which this Court would pass on the expiry of five years. Ordered accordingly. 42. We place on record our gratitude to Shri Harish N. Salve, learned Solicitor General of India, for the assistance he rendered to us in these proceedings. 43. A copy of this judgment will be forwarded to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and also to the Bar Council of India, for information.
-
2000 (12) TMI 930 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fence or where the offence is not disclosed in the complaint or the FIR the frivolous criminal litigation could be quashed. 8. There could be no dispute to the proposition that if the complaint does not make out an offence it can be quashed. However, it is also settled law that facts may give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence. Merely because a civil claim is maintainable does not mean that the criminal complaint cannot be maintained. In this case, on the facts, it cannot be stated, at this prima facie stage, that this is a frivolous complaint. The High Court does not state that on facts no offence is made out. If that be so, then merely on the ground that it was a civil wrong the criminal prosecution could not have been quashed. 9. In our view, the Order of the High Court cannot be maintained and is accordingly set aside. The trial Court to proceed with the Complaint in accordance with law. The Appeal is allowed. There will, however, be no Order as to costs.
-
2000 (12) TMI 929 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the Act." Furthermore, the only stumbling-block raised by the respondent-owners all along was the issue of the applicability of Section 3(f)(vi) only because the acquisition was under Part II, It was commenced and continued as such. The respondent's argument that the procedure followed was a hybrid procedure of Part II and Part VII, therefore, is erroneous. 71. From all this, the ultimate position which emerges is that the acquisition in favour of the appellant was properly initiated by publication of the Notification under Section 4(1) and by the declaration issued under Section 6. The withdrawal of the acquisition under Section 48(1) was vitiated not only because the appellant was not heard but also because the reason for withdrawal was wrong. The High Court erred in dismissing the appellant's writ petition. The decision of the High Court is accordingly set aside. The impugned Notification under Section 48(1) is quashed and the appeal is allowed with costs.F
-
2000 (12) TMI 928 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ere the agency is granted for collection of toll or taxes, as in the present case, it can be easily discerned that the claim of the respondent for extension of the period of the agency would not come in the way of the Government if it is economically more beneficial to have a fresh agreement by enhancing the consideration payable to the Government. In such an event, it cannot be said that the action of the Government inviting fresh bids is arbitrary. Moreover, the respondent can also participate in the tender process and get his bid considered. Hence, we do not think that the view taken by the High Court can be justified. 5. We set aside the order made by the Division Bench affirming the order of the learned single Judge in the writ proceedings and dismiss the writ petition. However, it is made clear that until fresh arrangements are made the terms upon which the agency has been granted in favour of the respondent may continue. 6. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
-
2000 (12) TMI 927 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... xecution of the Will, have been satisfactorily explained by the respondents. Since at the time of execution of Ext. A1 Will, Ippuru had no right over item Nos. 4 to 7, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1 to 5 did not get any right under the Will. Items 1 to 3 properties are seen to have been given to the 6th respondent and on the death of Ippuru, the 6th respondent got right over those items of properties. Hence, we find that letters of administration can be issued in favour of the 6th respondent who was the 6th plaintiff in the suit. The decree passed by the trial court is modified directing that letters of administration with copy of Ext. A1 Will annexed will be issued in favour of the 6th respondent (6th plaintiff) on her executing a bond for Rs. 80,000/- with one surety for the like amount. The other directions in the decree of the trial court will have to be complied with by the 6th respondent. The direction in the decree regarding payment of costs is confirmed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 926 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the letter from the Ministry of Industry dated 15-11-1998. Shri A.K. Jain submits that since the value of know-how stands included in the value of plant, for the purpose of importability this could not be bifurcated and the shelter of para 151 is not available. We observe that even if for the sake of valuation of the plant in terms of the Valuation Rules the value of the technology may be includible in the value of the physical plant, these specific measures prescribed by the ITC authorities for import of technology do treat such drawings, designs etc. separately from the physical machinery. We therefore accept the contention of the importers that the extent of excess over the licence value was not of ₹ 51 lakhs but it was near about of ₹ 25 lakhs. In that situation, upholding the liability to confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) we deem it proper to reduce the fine to ₹ 5 lakhs. 8. The appeal is so allowed. Consequential benefit shall be granted.
-
2000 (12) TMI 925 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... struments Act. 13. In a similar situation, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Andhra Engineering Corporation v. T.C.I. Finance Ltd., I (2000) CCR 113 1999 (3) Crimes 504, would hold that the portion of the amount either more than the cheque amount or less than the cheque amount would not make either the notice or the complaint invalid, in view of the fact that nonpayment of the balance amount, though it is a portion of the cheque amount, despite receipt of notice would definitely create a cause of action under Section 138(1)(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 14. Therefore, this ground raised by the Counsel for the petitioner, in my view, does not merit acceptance and the same has to be rejected and, accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to go on with the trial and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. The Registry is directed to send the order copy of the Trial Court immediately. Consequently, Crl. M.P. No. 1872 of 2000 is closed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 924 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ggler or the seizure or recovery of the foreign currencies. Yet, they have been referred in prominence and this would show that the said aspect had also been taken into consideration by the Detaining Authority as one of the materials to clamp the order of detention. 31. At the risk of repetition, it has to be stated, it is an extraneous and irrelevant material which had been taken into consideration in the decision making process by the Detaining Authority and following the decision of the Apex Court in Vashisht Narain Karwaria v. State of U.P. and another, 1990 S.C.C. (Crl.) 372 we hold that on this ground the order of detention cannot be sustained and it is quashed accordingly. It is not necessary to consider the remaining grounds. 32. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is allowed. The order of detention is quashed and there will be a direction to the respondents to forthwith set the detenu at liberty, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
-
2000 (12) TMI 923 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... We request High Courts of such of the States as are still in default in carrying out the directions of this Court to take up the matter with the respective State Governments and impress upon them the need to expedite amending of the rules. We are informed that some of the State Governments which have amended the rules have not kept the intent and purpose of the directions of this Court in the 1993 case in view. A blanket extension in the age of superannuation is not what was intended by this Court nor is it going to serve the public interest and larger interest of the society. The rules need to be so framed or amended as to give benefit of extended superannuation age only to such judicial officers about whom the High Court feels satisfied of their continued utility to the judicial system, subject to evaluation of their potential by making an objective assessment of their work, conduct and integrity and also keeping in view the reputation acquired by them as judicial officers.
-
2000 (12) TMI 922 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... while disposing of the writ petitions, filed by the officers of the subsidiary banks will not have any application to the case in hand, as had already been observed, while disposing of the contempt application, that it would only be applicable to the facts of that case and more so, in the present case, when we have already considered the contentions raised by the petitioners in detail, and have not been persuaded to accept the same. 12. In the aforesaid premises, all the contentions raised, having failed, these transferred cases/petitions, stand dismissed and the writ petitions filed by different petitioners in different High Courts stand dismissed. 13. For the grounds stated in the application for condonation of delay in filing the substitution application in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 665-668/98, in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned and the substitution application is allowed. The legal representatives of the deceased respondent no. 12 are brought on record.
-
2000 (12) TMI 921 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the consignment into the State. The duty was to be assessed and collected as in force at the time of import. Thus, our answer to the question, posed in earlier part of the judgment, is that the countervailing duty is chargeable at the rate prevailing on the date of actual import of the consignment into the State irrespective of the duty as in force at the time of obtaining the permit. The High Court, under the circumstances, rightly dismissed the writ petition, filed by the appellant. We find no merit in this appeal which, accordingly, fails and is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Civil Appeal Nos. 482-483 of 1998. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the judgment rendered by us in Civil Appeal No. 486 of 1998, decided above, applies to this case also as these appeals also arise out of common judgment dealt by us in that case. For the reasons stated in C.A. No. 486 of 1998, these appeals also fail and are dismissed but with no order as to costs.
-
2000 (12) TMI 920 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not a ‘provision’ it is automatically a reserve. The fact that amount has been set apart for redeeming liabilities makes it obvious that the intention is for clearing liabilities and not acquiring an asset. Bearing in mind these aspects, it is clear that the amount in question cannot be regarded as a ‘reserve’. It has to be regarded as a ‘provision’. Clearly the amount was set apart to meet a loan liability. It may also be noticed that the amount set apart is less than the respondent’s liabilities. It cannot be regarded as an asset. The decision in Vazir Sultan’s case (supra) was not correctly appreciated by the High Court. In this view, the questions deserve to be answered in the negative. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal and answer the questions in the negative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee, upholding the order of the assessing authority. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
2000 (12) TMI 919 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... n the silver utensils for the said purpose. If the silver utensils were required for special occasions then the assessee would have replaced the silver utensils after the sale of old utensils. That has not been done. The silver utensils were disclosed under the Amnesty Scheme and soon after sold. The articles of necessity have abruptly become surplus. The facts and circumstances of this case are against the proposition that the silver utensils were the personal effects of the minor (as on 31-3-1988 the assessee was a minor). The claim of the assessee, in our considered view, has rightly been rejected by the revenue authorities. The assessee has sought to extend the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme by making the claim that the silver utensils disclosed under the said scheme were the personal effects so as to escape the levy of capital gains tax, which is not well-founded. We therefore dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 918 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oncurrently by the two courts below, if works havoc to the cause of justice, cannot be allowed to be sustained. 25. Execution of receipt by Dalbir Singh son of Kartar Singh dated 1.3.1988 marks the taking of account between Dalbir Singh alias Vir Singh and the firm. No rendition of accounts could be asked for Dalbir Singh thereafter. 26. For the reasons given above, RSA No. 2557 of 1999 (in which is involved the grant of the relief of 1999, (in which is involved the grant of the relief of specific performance) is accepted. In consequence, the judgments and decree of both the courts below are set aside which they have passed in civil Suit No. 730 of 1997. Civil Suit No. 730 of 1997 is dismissed. RSA No. 4155 of 1999 (in which is involved the grant of relief of declaration and rendition of accounts) is dismissed. In consequence, the suit for declaration and rendition of accounts (Civil Suit No. 72 of 1997) remains dismissed as before. No order as to costs. 27. Revision allowed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 917 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... to issue notice would be the Collector of Central Excise, irrespective of the fact whether the notice is issued within six months or thereafter, shows that at least two interpretations were possible. Therefore, the one favouring the assessee must prevail especially when in 1992 there has been an amendment to the Statute. Furthermore, the construction put on Section 11(A) is in line with the decision of this Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission 1998 (103) ELT 3. The appeals are dismissed. No costs.
-
2000 (12) TMI 916 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ecution story, between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’ there is a long distance to travel and the whole of the distance must be covered by legal and un-impeachable evidence before a person can be convicted”. Applying the ratio of the above decision and the other decisions relied upon by the ld. Advocate we find that apart from the issue notes, which the appellants have explained, there is not an iota of evidence on record to establish the charge of clandestine removal against the appellants. As such in the absence of any evidence of surreptitiously removed goods, the demand of duty against the appellant is unsustainable in law being based on inferences and assumptions. For the same reasons there is no justification for imposition of penalties upon M/s. Utkal Polyweave Industries and upon Shri Ashok Maheshwary, Managing Director and Shri Gyan Deep Nandy, Asstt. Manager. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and allow all the three appeals.
-
2000 (12) TMI 915 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, PRINCIPAL, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... be considered to be taking part in the proceedings. But as per section 8 of the present Act, an application under this section has to be made before submitting the first statement on the substance of the dispute. In the present case, the respondents not only dealt with the substance of the petition in their interim reply but also filed other applications for relief. Therefore, the decision of the Apex Court in Food Corpn. of India's case (supra) are not applicable in respect of the new Act. 18. Thus, in view of our finding that there is no binding arbitration agreement in existence and that even otherwise, the respondents had submitted their first statement on the substance of the disputes before filing the application, we dismiss this application. The respondents are at liberty to file any additional affidavit in relation to the petition by 15-1-2001 and rejoinder, if any, to be Filed by 15-2-2001. The petition will be heard on 2, 3 and 4-4-2001 at 10.30 A.M. each day.
-
2000 (12) TMI 914 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e later case of Shamkant Narayan Deshpande vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corpn. & anr., 1993 Supp.(2) SCC 194, both these decisions have been distinguished, in view of the law laid down in Triloki Nath Khosas case, 1974(1) SCC 19. In the aforesaid premises and in view of the judgment of this Court in Triloki Nath Khosa, in P.Murugesan and in Shamkant Narayan Deshpande, the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court was fully justified in setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that by providing a ratio of 1 1 in the matter of promotion to the post of Junior Engineer between directly recruited technically qualified people and promotee technically not qualified people, there has been no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and we see no infirmity with the aforesaid conclusion of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court. Accordingly, these appeals fail and are dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (12) TMI 913 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... us to have a fire, furnace, source of heat or light to cook food. In the absence of such material, we find no substance in this contention. It is brought to our notice that a fire had taken place on a tank on 14.9.1997 and that it was extinguished after 14 days, which severely damaged all the building including the canteen and that food and beverages being provided to its employees by making an arrangement to obtain the same from outside the premises of the appellant. These facts are brought to our notice by an affidavit filed on 21.11.2000. But these factors do not come in the way of the award made by the Tribunal, as it is possible to locate the canteen in an appropriate place where there is no hazard of the kind envisaged under the Petroleum Rules. This contention is also rejected. In the circumstances aforesaid, the contention vis-à-vis the findings recorded by the Tribunal, we find absolutely no merit in these appeals and the same shall stand dismissed. No costs.
-
2000 (12) TMI 912 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... being the proximate date of the petition which was filed in November 1998. Once the shares are purchased by the company, we authorize the company, in terms of section 402, to reduce the share capital to that extent. Till the Bombay proceedings are completed and the valuation of the shares is made, the company will keep the amount to be received of the Arbitration award in a bank account and shall not draw any part of it, except towards meeting its expenses in the normal course of business. Since the petitioner has substantial stake in the company, one of the representatives of the Jain Group will be invited for all Board meetings of the company to which due notices by registered post should be given at least 7 days before the meeting and he will be entitled to copies of all the Board minutes. The petitioner will be given notices for all ensuing general body meetings, by registered post ack. due. 16. With the above directions we dispose of this petition. No order as to cost.
........
|
